Kerala Court January 1999 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Madathil Meethal Krishnan Vs. Mathikandathil Sukumaran and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-07-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker300
Mohammed, J. 1. The landlord in a proceeding for eviction of the tenant under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') is the revision petitioner. The revision is directed against the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C. A. No. 1 of 1989 confirming the order of the Rent Controller disallowing eviction on the ground of reconstruction. 2. The petition for eviction had been filed by the landlord alleging that the petition schedule building was in a dilapidated condition and hence it required to be reconstructed. In the petition for eviction further plea is that the building is located in a busy place where there are buildings of modern type in the surrounding areas and in view of such recent development the petition schedule building required reconstruction. The Rent Controller after evaluating the oral evidence of P.W. 1 and documentary evidence as per Exts. A1 to A8 came to the conclusion that the building requires ...
Chairman and Managing Director, Hindustan Latex Ltd. and anr. Vs. Stat ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-07-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ808
ORDERK.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. This Crl. M.C. is filed by the accused in C.C. No. 382 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Chengannur to quash Annexure-VIII order dated 7-4-1997 passed by the learned Magistrate and C. S. No. 382 of 1996 pending against them.2. The 2nd respondent filed Annexure-VI complaint against the petitioners alleging offence1 punishable under Section 292 IPC. The allegation is that the petitioners published an obscene advertisement in Malayala Manorama daily dated 17-8-96. The learned Magistrate after recording the Sworn statement of the 2nd respondent took cognizance of the offence and issued process to the petitioners. The petitioners appeared before the Magistrate's Court and submitted before the Court that taking cognizance of the offence and issuance of process to the petitioners to be reconsidered and the maintainability of the proceedings should be determined first before recording their plea. Accordingly the learned Magistr...
Mar Appraem Kuri Company Ltd. Vs. Tomy and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-1999
Reported in: [1999]96CompCas718(Ker)
S. Marimuthu, J. 1. This appeal is directed questioning the judgment and decree delivered by the Additional Sub-Judge, N. Paravur, in O. S. No. 612 of 1993, dated August 31, 1994. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-company represented by its chairman, located at Trichur town, for recovery of the future kuri amount of two kuries amounting to Rs. 45,300 from the defendants. Notice in this appeal was served on both the defendants. However, they have not appeared nor are they represented by any counsel.2. The facts as narrated by N. Subramaniam, learned counsel for the appellant, are, in short, as follows : The plaintiff-chitty company started two kuries in their branch office at Bangalore on April 5, 1988, and September 15, 1987, in which the first respondent/first defendant joined as a subscriber and he bid chits and received the bid amounts in both the chits. As security for the prized amounts, he executed exhibits A-1 and A-2 mortgage deed with his wife...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bharath Sea Foods
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-1999
Reported in: [1999]237ITR46(Ker)
K.K. Usha, J. 1. The question raised in I. T. R. Nos. 123 and 169 of 1986, is whether the assessee-company, which is engaged in the business of catching, purchasing, processing and exporting fish, is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In I.T.Rs. Nos. 3 and 4 of 1987, the issue is whether the assessee, which is carrying on the business of the same nature, is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act.2. Following the principle laid down in CIT v. Marwell Sea Foods : [1987]166ITR624(Ker) , this court had taken the view that assessees carrying on similar activity as in the present cases, are entitled to deduction under Section 80J (vide CIT v. Poyilakkada Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. : [1992]197ITR85(Ker) and CIT v. Poyilakkada Fisheries (P.) Lt4. : [1992]197ITR93(Ker) (Appex.). On the very same principle, it was held in CIT v. Marwell Sea Foods : [1987]166ITR624(Ker) , that the assessee carrying on similar activities, is entitled t...
Malayil Bankers Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-1999
Reported in: [1999]236ITR869(Ker)
P. Shanmugam, J.1. O. P. No. 3966 of 1998 is filed against the order of regular assessment for the years 1995-96 and 1996-97 on the ground that the assessment period is included in the block assessment and, therefore, there cannot be a separate independent assessment. In O. P. No. 20252 of 1998 the challenge is against levy of penalty by the Assessing Officer.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner is a firm carrying on the business of money-lending. In the assessment years 1995-96 and, 1996-97, the petitioner filed the return under Section 139 of the Income-tax Act showing loss for the four years. While the assessment is being processed the first respondent passed an order on December 20, 1996, under Section 131(3) of the Income-tax Act to conduct a survey under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act in the premises of the petitioner and impounded the books as per exhibit-P-2 order. The Commissioner of Income-tax by exhibit-P-3 order impounded the books of account a...
Dr. C. Balakrishnan Nair and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-1999
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Ker)523; [1999]237ITR70(Ker)
P. Shanmugam, J.1. The petitioners, a married couple, are medical practitioners at Calicut. They are assessees to income-tax. In this original petition, they challenge exhibits P-1 and P-3 panchnamas and exhibit P-2 statement obtained from the first petitioner. They have also prayed to quash exhibit P-6 notice issued under Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act and for a direction not to invoke the provisions under Chapter XIV-B of the Act and also for a further direction to the respondents to permit them to have a regular assessment.2. The facts leading to the filing of the original petition are as follows : The petitioners' residential premises were searched by a team of officers headed by the second respondent as per the warrant issued under Section132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', on October 27, 1995. The search was provisionally concluded on October 27, 1995, and a panchnama, exhibit P-1, dated October 27, 1995, was prepared on that day with an as...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bharath Sea Foods
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-1999
Reported in: (1999)152CTR(Ker)502
NARA YA1VA KUR UP, J. The Revenue is the applicant in all these IT reference cases with the assessee(s) figuring as respondent(s). We are concerned with the asst. yr. 197879 in IT Ref. 123 of 1986, 1977-78 in IT Ref. 169 of 1986, asst. yrs. 1974-75 and 1975-76 in IT Ref. Nos. 3 and 4 of 1987. The assessee- company is engaged in the business of catching, purchasing, processing and exporting fish and selling the same. The assessee- company put forward a plea that it is entitled to claim deduction under s. 80J and 80HH of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The ITO negatived the said plea. In appeal, the AAC upheld the pleas of the assessee(s). In second appeal, the Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) by placing reliance on the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Poyllakada Fisheries (P) Ltd. vide order dt. 12th June, 1985 in ITA No. 35 (Coch) 1982 wherein the Tribunal had held in similar circumstances that the assessee therein was entitled to relief under s. 8...
Philips Alfred MalvIn Vs. Y.J. Gonsalvis and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker187; I(2000)DMC540
D. Sreedevi, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment in A.S. No. 92 of 1989 of the Sub Court, Thalassery, which wasfiled against the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 458 of 1987 of the Munsiffs Court, Kannur. The plaintiff before the trial Court is the appellant. 2. The case of the appellant is that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to deceased George Correa and his wife Jane Correa, as per document No. 912/1955. Jane Correa predeceased her husband George Correa. She died on 2-11-1970. George Correa died on 18-12-1976. His legal representatives are the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 and another son Malvin, who is no more. The legal representatives of Malvin Correa are defendants 3 to 8. The plaintiff claiming to be the adopted son of George Correa sued for partition of the plaint schedule property. 2A. The defendants contended that the suit is not maintainable, that the plaintiff is not the adopted son of deceased George Correa, that George Correa ...
L.S. Prasad Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-1999
Reported in: [2003]133STC582(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and an asscssee on the files of the first respondent. He was dealing in cement and cattle-feed. There was an inspection of the business premises of the petitioner by the second respondent on September 22, 1992 and certain documents have been seized. Based on the materials gathered in such inspection, the second respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner fur imposition of penalty under Section 45A of the Act. Exhibit P1 is the notice asking the petitioner to compound the offence. Since the petitioner did not agree for compounding, proceedings under Section 45A were initiated by issuing exhibit P5 notice. The petitioner requested for permission to take extracts from the seized records which, though permitted, was not issued. Still the petitioner filed exhibit P7 objection. Rejecting the said objections the second respondent issued exhibit P8 penalty order by which a penalty ...
Lovely Thomas Vs. Tomy Alexander
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-1999
Reported in: I(2000)DMC609
P.V. Narayanan Nambiar, J. 1. The Original Petition is filed under Sections 10 and 18 of the Indian Divorce Act with the following allegations :2. The petitioner and the respondent are Christians and their marriage was solemnised on 15.8.1982 in accordance with the custom of the community. Though initially the petitioner and her parents were not interested in the marriage proposal, the marriage was solemnised due to the insistance of the respondent. At the time of marriage, the respondent was employed in U.A.E. After the marriage, they lived together at the residence of the petitioner for four days. During the first night, the respondent pretended to be ill. She saw him taking medicines from the next day onwards. She was told that the respondent was suffering from jaundice for which he was taking some Ayurvedic medicines and so she was to keep herself away from him. Thus the marriage could not be consummated. The respondent left for U.A.E. promising that he would secure a job for the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »